RearviewmirrorJoined: 24 Jan 2009Posts: 18843Location: ^^Tamba waiting on his next feast in the Avy Ryk on the sig

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:21 am Post subject:

lawful yet1 wrote:

ArrowheadRage58 wrote:

lawful yet1 wrote:

Rearviewmirror wrote:

lawful yet1 wrote:

Jakuvious wrote:

ArrowheadRage58 wrote:

and if you're taking a LT or DL, you better be damn sure they're gonna make more of an impact than a QB.

And you better have a pretty sizable hole at that position (which we most certainly do not at LT.)

if we could retain albert and move him to left guard and pick up a franchise left tackle you bet your ace that would be a better pick then reaching for a qb just look whats going on in philli the oline makes or breaks a offense.

Our OL isn't even close to as bad as Philly's. We would be insane to do anything but take the #1 QB on our board.

really i would say our oline is worse then philli's they get there starters back and there good to go we have our starters there just not good. and please show me one example of a great qb with a bad oline winning a superbowl we all know theres been several great olines with bad qb's winning one

We're not missing starters??? This is a good line when healthy, it looks pretty bad at times because of the ineptitude at QB/playcalling and game situations of usually being behind.

were missing hudson and we still have no clue what we have in him

well we may not know what we have completely, but we know he is good. He was clearly our best IOL up until his injury._________________

les paul wrote:

There's only one thing that determines a teams performance on any given sunday
Their opponent-

If anyone wonders how an organization can find itself staring directly at 30 years of time span between their last 1st round QB and (I guess I should add potentially here) their next 1st round QB - they need simply read this thread. Posts in this thread of people talking themselves out of drafting a QB before anything else with things like "weak class", "value" , "separation and drop off".

Sigh.

Then follow that up with basically begging for some ridiculous luck to go our way. People in this draft want the OTHER THIRTY ONE TEAMS to all be wrong about the best QB available in the 1st round so we can steal him in the 2nd round! Seriously?!! No.. really.. SERIOUSLY?!

They want EVERYONE ELSE TO MISS so we can get the stud QB of the draft at #33 OVERALL!

But hey, Tom Brady was a 6th round pick so that proves it's possible right?! Aaron Rodgers was missed on by like 21 teams before GB took him.. so proof it happens right?! Well, yes. It does happen. You just don't plan for it that way. You HOPE that you figure out which guy is the stud and get him immediately. You do not risk him going anywhere else.

One of these QB's is going to be the best of the bunch in this class and he's going to have SB potential. We get first crack at picking him. TAKE HIM! Whoever it is - TAKE HIM.

Oh no.. we'd rather hope 31 other teams miss so we can get him - or the next best guy even at 33. Awesome.

I want the best damn QB available. And in 3 years (or less if so obvious) he isn't the guy.. I want to TRY AGAIN!

I'm done with trying to get LUCKY. I'm done watching all the other teams take all the risk in some foolish hope that we will sweep in behind them and get all the reward.

And most importantly - I'm done with that MINDSET from our OWNER, GM, COACHING STAFF, and FANBASE!

Sincerely,

A86

Couldn't have said it better myself. Value means nothing to me at this point. Get a freaking QB and don't look back. It's not even as big of a risk anymore with the rookie wage scale._________________Forty three years and counting

My point was more that just because some Packers went to a pro bowl doesn't mean they're actually good. The Packers line is only good at pass pro, and that is questionable._________________
^ryknowssd on the sig

My point was more that just because some Packers went to a pro bowl doesn't mean they're actually good. The Packers line is only good at pass pro, and that is questionable.

Timmerman was a alternate 4 straight years im guessing that means he doesnt suck right? as far as Hudson goes i keep hearing the key words we dont know. what we do know is lilja and allen both suck but hey lets not worry about it and hope in the offseason one of them finds a magic lamp and is granted the abillity to play sounds like a great plan

My point was more that just because some Packers went to a pro bowl doesn't mean they're actually good. The Packers line is only good at pass pro, and that is questionable.

Timmerman was a alternate 4 straight years im guessing that means he doesnt suck right? as far as Hudson goes i keep hearing the key words we dont know. what we do know is lilja and allen both suck but hey lets not worry about it and hope in the offseason one of them finds a magic lamp and is granted the abillity to play sounds like a great plan

Lilja is a like an 8 year vet, I think you can accurately assess his ability, and not expect it to improve.

Allen on the other hand has looked really good at times, and terrible at others. To me that suggests he just needs more work and experience, as his issues are not ability related, but more focus and understanding related. I firmly believe Allen will be at a minimum above average.

And similarly, Hudson looked really good at times, and meh others. It's his second year, we can reasonably expect improvement next year.

There's a reason we've drafted guys and sat them a year before throwing them out there, learning a ZBS takes time. It also takes time for an o-line to gel together as a unit, and even more so if you run a ZBS. O-line musical chairs does not help that at all.

And what exactly is your argument here, fix the o-line before getting a good QB? Why are these things mutually exclusive? Can we not draft Geno and look to upgrade the line too?_________________
^ryknowssd on the sig

Joined: 31 Aug 2011Posts: 5260Location: Hate for the Donkeys is at a mile high

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:34 pm Post subject:

Rearviewmirror wrote:

bigschmadt00 wrote:

^but is Hudson going to the probowl?

are the only good OL probowlers? That is news to me.

An OLine with 1-2 pro bowlers and 3-4 average to below average is apparently better than having 5 above average with 2 just below pro bowl level, for example.

Atleast that's what i'm learning from this thread.

Also Ryk was referring to the '10 Packers and lawful is referring to the '96 Packers. Pimping Timmerman as a pro bowler to prove a point is great, but he was only in his 2nd or 3rd year and was not a pro bowler at that time...even if he was at that level, what about the rest of the line...not to mention you're not even talking about the right Packer team._________________

49ers Finest wrote:

People just seem to be mad because the chiefs are all of a sudden doing what their fans thought they were capable of

My point was more that just because some Packers went to a pro bowl doesn't mean they're actually good. The Packers line is only good at pass pro, and that is questionable.

Timmerman was a alternate 4 straight years im guessing that means he doesnt suck right? as far as Hudson goes i keep hearing the key words we dont know. what we do know is lilja and allen both suck but hey lets not worry about it and hope in the offseason one of them finds a magic lamp and is granted the abillity to play sounds like a great plan

Lilja is a like an 8 year vet, I think you can accurately assess his ability, and not expect it to improve.

Allen on the other hand has looked really good at times, and terrible at others. To me that suggests he just needs more work and experience, as his issues are not ability related, but more focus and understanding related. I firmly believe Allen will be at a minimum above average.

And similarly, Hudson looked really good at times, and meh others. It's his second year, we can reasonably expect improvement next year.

There's a reason we've drafted guys and sat them a year before throwing them out there, learning a ZBS takes time. It also takes time for an o-line to gel together as a unit, and even more so if you run a ZBS. O-line musical chairs does not help that at all.

And what exactly is your argument here, fix the o-line before getting a good QB? Why are these things mutually exclusive? Can we not draft Geno and look to upgrade the line too?

i will agree with ya when it comes to Hudson im holding out hope for him but Allen is just bad and lilja isnt much better then him. as far as drafting geno im just not impressed with him as most seem to be on here i personally like Murray i think he's a better fit

An OLine with 1-2 pro bowlers and 3-4 average to below average is apparently better than having 5 above average with 2 just below pro bowl level, for example.

Atleast that's what i'm learning from this thread.

Also Ryk was referring to the '10 Packers and lawful is referring to the '96 Packers. Pimping Timmerman as a pro bowler to prove a point is great, but he was only in his 2nd or 3rd year and was not a pro bowler at that time...even if he was at that level, what about the rest of the line...not to mention you're not even talking about the right Packer team.

5 above average who are they why havent i ever seen them on the feild are they hurt? Albert yes Asomoah he's getting there who in the world are the outher 3 please fill me in here